I think I can go 100 - 0 against all my classical opponents so far, but in bullet that would be an entirely different story!
@YouGetNoRest: "It is not possible to inflate your rating because the formula is statistically sound. If you just play lower rated players on purpose, like you suggest, then you win fewer points and when you get "unlucky" because you're a 1700 player that thinks you can game the system by playing a bunch of games against slightly lower players and you lose one then you suffer a larger drop. Your whole argument is nonsense. We have a rating system, backed by hard coded math so that we don't have to pontificate our opinions."
I believe lichess and the math they are convinced by agrees with her. I reported someone for being in the 3 check top 50 by beating 1400s-1600s (not many of the latter) and getting a rating of 2080. Nothing happened. I still find it intuitively hard to accept that math. Playing 1500s is boring so we tend so lose some through lack of focus/arrogance. But if you're really motivated I would very strongly guess that you can inflate your rating this way, whatever the math says. The math might be right, just because the wannabe inflaters are not focussed/too arrogant. But why would a genuine 2000 player bore themselves playing 1500s? They just wouldn't. I play a lot of 1750+ players, but if you look at my history you can see they whoop my az a lot of the time :p 1750s are bizarelly hard in three check sometimes :)
I believe lichess and the math they are convinced by agrees with her. I reported someone for being in the 3 check top 50 by beating 1400s-1600s (not many of the latter) and getting a rating of 2080. Nothing happened. I still find it intuitively hard to accept that math. Playing 1500s is boring so we tend so lose some through lack of focus/arrogance. But if you're really motivated I would very strongly guess that you can inflate your rating this way, whatever the math says. The math might be right, just because the wannabe inflaters are not focussed/too arrogant. But why would a genuine 2000 player bore themselves playing 1500s? They just wouldn't. I play a lot of 1750+ players, but if you look at my history you can see they whoop my az a lot of the time :p 1750s are bizarelly hard in three check sometimes :)
@aceno0b that's what statistically sound means. The rating formula is a measurement of performance. The number is the verdict. Personally, I am the opposite of some people in these forums. I think my skill level is massively above 2000 and as I play more games and games against higher rated people I expect my rating to reflect that!
<Comment deleted by user>
@SankarKappagantula Do you think a 1700 player is likely to win 68 games in a row against players between averaging 1300 rating?
<Comment deleted by user>
@SankarKappagantula Sounds like you've never been a 1700. I don't think a 1700 would have a good chance of winning 20 games in a row, let alone 68. Much less all one sided, totally dominant games from start to finish as I played them.
<Comment deleted by user>
@SankarKappagantula Not very logical, It would also be very easy for someone over 1700. Not to mention, I think 1700s are a lot weaker than you give them credit, it's easy to pass 1800 rating, for example, by simply not hanging pieces.
<Comment deleted by user>
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.